SHAKIL HAMID SHEIKH,NAVI MUMBAI vs. ACIT 22(3), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 6775/Mum/2013 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2008-09) Shri Shakil Hamid Sheikh, Asstt. Commissioner Of बनाम/ Survey No. 183, Income Tax – 22(3), V. Kukshet, Mumbai. Opp. Hpcl, Midc, Navi Mumbai – 400 703. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan : Abqps2677G .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent)

50C of the Act. We are in agreement with the assessee that the deeming fiction of Section 50-C of the Act under which capital gains arising from sale of land owing to adoption of DVO value of Rs. 35.75 lacs instead of actual sale consideration of Rs. 31.20 lacs will not be hit by section 271

PRATAP RATAN DAS,MUMBAI vs. ITO 14(1)(4), MUMBAI

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Jason P. Boaz, Am & Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm आयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No. 1272/Mum/2012 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2008-09)

5 Pratap Ratan Das vs. ITO The Hon'ble High Court of Madras in the case of V.R. Palani Swamy vs. Union of India (180 Taxman 2.e3) had held that section 48 provides for mode of computation of capital gains and section 50C has been introduced from 1.4.2003 by Finance Act. 2002. The conspectus of the provision is that

DR. PRAKASH D.SAMANT,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT CEN CIR 3(2), MUMBAI

In the result the grounds of appeal raised by assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Pawan Singhdr. Prakash D. Samant Dcit, Cc-3(2) 1St Floor, Sundara Narayan Room No. 402, 4Th Floor, Niwas, Padmavati Road, Opp. Iit Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Gate, Powai, Mumbai-400076. Mumbai-400020. Pan: Aaeps0065P Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Shri Hari S. Raheja (Ar) Respondent By : Shri Love Kumar (Dr)

u/s 271(1)(c) more than once. 4. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the levying of penalty despite the fact that the order passed by ITA No. 1166 Mum 2017-Dr. Prakash D. Samant the Ld. Assessing Officer is barred by limitation as per the provisions

ANKUR DRUGS & PHARMA LTD.,MUMBAI vs. ACIT CC-20, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee for assessment year 2011-2012

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar (Am) & Shri Ram Lal Negi (Jm) Assessment Year: 2011-12 Ankur Drugs & Pharma Ltd., The Assistant Commissioner Of C- 306, Crystal Plaza, Income Tax, Andheri Link Road, Central Circle – 20, Andheri (West), Vs. Mumbai Mumbai - 400053 Pan: Aacca2062M (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: None Revenue By : Shri Rajiv Harit ( Cit Dr) Date Of Hearing: 05/03/2020 Date Of Pronouncement: 20/04/2020

section 271 (1) (c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Penalty U/s 271 (1) (c) : Rs. 10,84,24,947/- 3.0 The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in confirming the penalty of Rs. 10,84,24,947/- u/s 271 (1) (c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.” 4. This appeal was fixed for hearing on 05.03.2020. However, none appeared

DINESH SUNDERJI SHAH,MUMBAI vs. ASSESSING OFFICER, NFAC, DELHI

In the result both the appeals are allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh, Jm

50C of the Act does not apply, naturally, the provisions of Section 56(2)(X)(b) of the Act also do not apply. 015. Accordingly, solitary ground raised in this appeal is allowed and the learned Assessing Officer is directed to allow carry forward of capital loss of ₹3,39,60,946/- to the assessee. 016. In the result

DINESH SUNDERJI SHAH,MUMBAI vs. ASSESSING OFFICER, WARD-15(1)(1), MUMBAI

In the result both the appeals are allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh, Jm

50C of the Act does not apply, naturally, the provisions of Section 56(2)(X)(b) of the Act also do not apply. 015. Accordingly, solitary ground raised in this appeal is allowed and the learned Assessing Officer is directed to allow carry forward of capital loss of ₹3,39,60,946/- to the assessee. 016. In the result

DCIT, CC-3(3)(2), MUMBAI vs. TRANS FREIGHT CONTAINERS LTD., MUMBAI

In the result this appeal by the revenue is stands dismissed

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Sanjay Garg

5. Ld. CIT-A deleted the penalty holding as under; i) This ground of appeal pertains to the imposition of penalty u/s 271(1) Income Tax Act, 1961 for an amount of Rs.59,26,496/-. It is not in dispute that the appellant had Trans Freight Containers Ltd. ITA No. 2337/Mum. /2016 furnished copies of sale agreement for the impugned

NIRAJ MUKESH PATEL,MUMBAI vs. ACIT 21(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals are allowed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2009-10 Niraj Mukesh Patel Flat No. Asst. Commissioner Of 6, 2Nd Floor, Vibhuti Vs. Income Tax-21(1), Apartments, Ruia Park, Mumbai. Gandhi Gram Road, Juhu, Vile Parle (W), Mumbai- 400049. Pan No. Aavpp9786F Appellant Respondent & Assessment Year: 2009-10 Nikhil Mukesh Patel Flat Asst. Commissioner Of No. 6, 2Nd Floor, Vibhuti Vs. Income Tax-21(1), Apartments, Ruia Park, Mumbai. Gandhi Gram Road, Juhu, Vile Parle (W), Mumbai- 400049. Pan No. Aavpp8745J Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Ms. Dinkle Hariya, Ar Revenue By : Mr. Neil Philip, Dr Date Of Hearing : 10/09/2018 Date Of Pronouncement : 19/09/2018

5. Before us, the Ld. counsel of the assessee submits that penalty u/s 271(1)(c) cannot be levied in case where the addition is on account of invocation of section 50C

NIKHIL MUKESH PATEL,MUMBAI vs. ACIT 21(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals are allowed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2009-10 Niraj Mukesh Patel Flat No. Asst. Commissioner Of 6, 2Nd Floor, Vibhuti Vs. Income Tax-21(1), Apartments, Ruia Park, Mumbai. Gandhi Gram Road, Juhu, Vile Parle (W), Mumbai- 400049. Pan No. Aavpp9786F Appellant Respondent & Assessment Year: 2009-10 Nikhil Mukesh Patel Flat Asst. Commissioner Of No. 6, 2Nd Floor, Vibhuti Vs. Income Tax-21(1), Apartments, Ruia Park, Mumbai. Gandhi Gram Road, Juhu, Vile Parle (W), Mumbai- 400049. Pan No. Aavpp8745J Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Ms. Dinkle Hariya, Ar Revenue By : Mr. Neil Philip, Dr Date Of Hearing : 10/09/2018 Date Of Pronouncement : 19/09/2018

5. Before us, the Ld. counsel of the assessee submits that penalty u/s 271(1)(c) cannot be levied in case where the addition is on account of invocation of section 50C

NUSRAT MUSTAFA RASIWALA,MUMBAI vs. PR CIT 25, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Nk Pradhan, Am Nusrat Mustafa Rasiwala Pr. Commissioner Of 2/5, Ai Hasnat Chs Income Tax-25 Off S R Marg (West End) C-10, Pratyakshkar Bhavan, Vs. North South Road, 10Th Road Bandra Kurla Complex Jvpd, Mumbai-400 049 (East), Mumbai Appellant .. Respondent Pan No.Aabpr1985J

Section 50C of the IT Act resulting taxable LTCG at Rs.21,26,505/- .The AO has not initiated penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)( c ) of the IT Act against the above addition of long term capital gain." 4. The CIT after discussing the facts and legal position, finally noted that the matter should have been referred to the DVO u/s

SKF INIDA LTD( SINCE MAY 19 2004 NAME HAS BEEN CHANGED FROM SKF BEARING INDIA LTD),MUMBAI vs. DCIT RG 4(3), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed and the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Rajendra & Shri C.N. Prasadआयकर अपील सं /I.Ta No.7092/Mum/2013 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year:2002-03 M/S. Skf India Ltd., The Acit-4(3), बनाम/ (Formerly Known As Skf Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. Bearings India Ltd) Mumbai-400 020 Mahatama Gandhi Memorial Bldg., Netaji Subhash Road, Mumbai-400 002 Appellant Respondent आयकर अपील सं /I.Ta No.3558/Mum/2012 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year:2005-06 M/S. Skf India Ltd., The Acit-4(3), बनाम/ (Formerly Known As Skf Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. Bearings India Ltd) Mumbai-400 020 Mahatama Gandhi Memorial Bldg., Netaji Subhash Road, Mumbai-400 002 आयकर अपील सं /I.Ta No.7093/Mum/2013 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year:2004-05 M/S. Skf India Ltd., The Acit-4(3), बनाम/ (Formerly Known As Skf Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. Bearings India Ltd) Mumbai-400 020 Mahatama Gandhi Memorial Bldg., Netaji Subhash Road, Mumbai-400 002 आयकर अपील सं /I.Ta No.6989/Mum/2013 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year:2004-05

penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act. 3. Brief facts are that in all these three Assessment Years assessee has sold flats on which it had claimed Long Term Capital Gains and offered to tax at 20%. In the Annexure to computation of income, the assessee has given the reason for claiming Long Term Capital Gains on sale

SKF INDIA LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT 4(3)4, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed and the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Rajendra & Shri C.N. Prasadआयकर अपील सं /I.Ta No.7092/Mum/2013 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year:2002-03 M/S. Skf India Ltd., The Acit-4(3), बनाम/ (Formerly Known As Skf Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. Bearings India Ltd) Mumbai-400 020 Mahatama Gandhi Memorial Bldg., Netaji Subhash Road, Mumbai-400 002 Appellant Respondent आयकर अपील सं /I.Ta No.3558/Mum/2012 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year:2005-06 M/S. Skf India Ltd., The Acit-4(3), बनाम/ (Formerly Known As Skf Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. Bearings India Ltd) Mumbai-400 020 Mahatama Gandhi Memorial Bldg., Netaji Subhash Road, Mumbai-400 002 आयकर अपील सं /I.Ta No.7093/Mum/2013 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year:2004-05 M/S. Skf India Ltd., The Acit-4(3), बनाम/ (Formerly Known As Skf Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. Bearings India Ltd) Mumbai-400 020 Mahatama Gandhi Memorial Bldg., Netaji Subhash Road, Mumbai-400 002 आयकर अपील सं /I.Ta No.6989/Mum/2013 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year:2004-05

penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act. 3. Brief facts are that in all these three Assessment Years assessee has sold flats on which it had claimed Long Term Capital Gains and offered to tax at 20%. In the Annexure to computation of income, the assessee has given the reason for claiming Long Term Capital Gains on sale

M/S. D.R. PLASTICS,MUMBAI vs. ITO WD, 21(1) (4) , MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Shri Rahul Chaudharym/S D.R. Plastics Vs. Ito, Ward 21(1)(4) 26, Ideal Industrial Piramal Chambers Estate, Madhuradas Mumbai - 400012 Compound Lower Parel, Mumbai – 400013 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./ Pan/Gir No: Aacfd7223N Appellant .. Respondent

section 50C.” 2. Fact in brief is that assessment u/s 143(3) of the Act was completed on 15.02.2016 determining nil income. During the course of assessment the A.O noticed that assessee firm had sold a property for a consideration of Rs.35 lac as against the fair market value of Rs.42.90 lacs assessed by the stamp valuation authority

DAIRY OWNERS LEAGUE CO OP SOC .LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 24(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh () & Shri G Manjunatha ()

50C of the Act and also, the error committed in respect of interest earned on FDR while filing return of income. The CIT(A), after considering relevant submissions of the assessee held that the assessee has furnished inaccurate particulars of its income and accordingly the AO was right in levying penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. The relevant

ACIT 8(1), MUMBAI vs. BUSINESS PRESS P.LTD, MUMBAI

The appeal stands dismissed

Section 50C was deleted by observing that Ld. AO did not question the actual sale consideration and therefore, it was not a case of concealment of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income which would warrant penalty u/s 271(1)(c). Aggrieved as aforesaid, the revenue is in further appeal before us. 5

KISHORE ANAND SHETTY,GOREGAON EAST MUMBAI vs. CIRCLE 32(2) , MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed in terms indicated above

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL (Accountant Member)

5. The assessee’s share in the said plot of land was 19.70%. Accordingly, the assessee considered his proportionate sale consideration at ₹23,59,770/- and offered the same to tax in the return of income. The Assessing Officer, however, noticing the difference between the declared consideration and the stamp duty valuation, invoked the deeming provisions of section 50C

DCIT CC- 3(4), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. BHAWANISHANKAR HARISHCHANDRA SHARMA, MUMBAI

Bench: SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 of Rs. 1,08,76,000/- by ignoring the fact that the assessee failed to adhere to the provisions of section 50C(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. The appellant crave for leave for Hon’ble Tribunal to alter or armed any or all grounds of appeal before

DCIT 1(1)(2), MUMBAI vs. FORBES & COMPANY LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shir Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri Gagan Goyal

Penalty proceedings u/s. 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act are separately initiated for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income thereby concealment of income. Finally the AO has assessed the total loss of Rs. 22,32,20,285/- and passed the order u/s 143(3) of the Act dated 18.03.2013. 6. Aggrieved by the order, the assessee has filed an appeal